When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European,
or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent?
Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you
separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds
violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to
any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he
is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.

What has happened here [on 9-11] is not war in its traditional sense.
This is clearly a crime against humanity. War crimes are
crimes which happen in war time. There is a confusion there.
This is a crime against humanity because it is deliberate and
intentional killing of large numbers of civilians
for political or other purposes. That is not tolerable
under the international systems. And it should be prosecuted
pursuant to the existing laws. . . .

We're not re-writing any rules. We don't have to
re-write any rules. We have to apply the existing
rules. To call them "terrorists" is also a misleading
term. There's no agreement on what terrorism is. One
man's terrorism is another man's heroism. . . . We try them
for mass murder. That's a crime under every jurisdiction and
that's what's happened here and that is a crime against humanity.

The fact that Americans have had repeated recourse to al-Qaeda
Islamists as assets in their expansive projects does not
constitute proof that there is any long-term systematic strategy
to do so, still less that there is a secret alliance.
I believe rather that America is suffering from a malignant
condition of military power run amok – power which, like a
malignant cancer, tends to reproduce itself at times in ways
counterproductive to larger goals. Those who are appointed to
manage this vast power become inured to using any available
assets, in order to sustain a sociodynamic of global intervention
that they are, ironically, powerless to challenge or turn around.
The few dissenters who try to do so are predictably sidelined or
even ejected from the heights of power, as not being “on
the team.” . . . .

At present America is in the midst of an unprecedented budget
crisis, brought on in large part by its multiple wars.
Nevertheless it is also on the point of several further
interventions: in Yemen, Somalia, possibly Syria or Iran (where
the CIA is said to be in contact with the drug-trafficking
al-Qaeda offshoot Jundallah), and most assuredly in Libya.
Only the American public can stop them. But in order for the
people to rise up and cry Stop! there must first be a better
understanding of the dark alliances underlying America’s
alleged humanitarian interventions.

This awareness may increase when Americans finally realize that
there is domestic blowback from assisting terrorists as well. The
long elaborate dance between Mohamed and his Justice Department
overseers makes it clear that the handling of terrorists for
corrupt purposes corrupts the handlers as well as the terrorists.
Eventually both the handlers and the handled become in effect
co-conspirators, with secrets about their collusion both parties
need to conceal.

Until the public takes notice, that concealment of collusion will
continue. And as long as it continues, we will continue to be
denied the truth about what collusions underlay 9/11.
Worse, we are likely to see more terrorist attacks, at home as
well as abroad, along with more illegal, costly, and unnecessary
wars.

The Defendant is a convicted war criminal consequently unfit to hold public
office; citizens, soldiers and all civil personnel of the United States
would be constitutionally and otherwise justified in withdrawing all
co-operation from the Defendant and his government and in declining to obey
illegal orders of the Defendant and his administration including military
orders threatening other nations or the people of the United States on the
basis of the
Nuremberg Principle,
that illegal orders of Superior must not be obeyed.

[T]he rage I felt after 9/11 was rage at the whole system, that
people could be so desperate that they would do something like
this. The people who flew the planes into the building are dead:
what more can you do to them? But this kind of terrorism is like
a cancer. The only way you stop it is to stop the cycle, by
saying, "I'm not going to respond to terrorism by becoming a
terrorist." If you do respond with violence, you are just
promoting more and more terrorism. . . .

No one has ever asked me how I feel about anything. That's where
the feeling of violation comes in -- speaking for me, instead of
asking me how I feel. We had a baby about a month ago, and I'm
realising that she will never know my brother. How could I
possibly wish that kind of loss on anyone else's brother, or
daughter, or parents?

The thing to atone my brother's death would be for there to be
more honesty in the world, for America to start being more
honest about the repercussions of its world policy. Over the
past year, I have really educated myself about foreign policy --
I wanted to know why this happened. What I wish now is that
people in the US would do the same. I want people to just shut
their mouths and read -- stop talking until they know something.
We all have to do that, including me.

`Bin Laden does not have the capabilities
for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking
about al-Qaeda as if it were Nazi Germany or the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is
there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years:
every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaeda has been
penetrated by US intelligence, Pakistani intelligence,
Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not
have kept secret an operation that required such a degree
of organisation and sophistication.'"

But we are not at war. The 9/11 bombings were a crime against humanity
mass murder of civilians. The U.N. Security Council rejected Bush II's
bid to label the bombings an "armed attack" by one state against
another state. The resolution that was passed denominated these events
as "terrorist attacks." As international law professor Francis Boyle
points out, "there is a magnitude of difference between an armed attack
by one state against another state, which is an act of war, and a
terrorist attack, which is not. . . . terrorists are dealt with as
criminals. Terrorists are not treated like nation states. Terrorists
are dealt with by means of international and domestic law
enforcement. Terrorists are not given the dignity of special status
under international law and practice."

But elevating the dignity of terrorist individuals to reside on a
par with the authority of nation-states is precisely what Bush II is
doing. The claim that "we are are war" provides the underlying
justification for the USA PATRIOT Act,
the Homeland Security Act, and
the violation and destruction of the foundations of American
Constitutional liberties as well as the abrogation of the United
States' participation as an equal member in the family of nations.
Regressing to the barbaric might-makes-right "law of the jungle"
promises the abrogation of an entire species' evolutionary history
that seeks to honor and serves life's needs. There is much to be done
to challenge and dispell the bewitchment that "we are at war."

Having been conditioned your entire
lives, the way we are all conditioned our entire lives, to
receive sound-bite answers to questions we have never had the
critical ability to form in our minds, forecloses our ability to
interrogate reality and draw conclusions from it. That is the
function of the media. That is the function of the educational
system you understand. It's not to teach you to think
critically, which is educational in value. It's to teach you
what to think. That's indoctrination.

That's a rather different thing, to be indoctrinated than to be
educated. We have this problem here in this population called
"ignorance." And some of this population actually is. But when
you say the word "ignorant" it's supposed to mean you didn't
have the information: "I didn't know about it. I was ignorant of
it." No, that's to be uninformed. And truly, there are a lot of
people uninformed about a lot of things here. Uninformed is one
thing. Ignorance is another.

We've got an ignorant leadership. We've got an ignorant
intelligentsia. Ignorant means to have the information right
there in front of you and ignore it. To draw conclusions in the
face of the evidence; to pretend that the evidence does not
exist -- clear evidence of genocide and war crimes -- to pretend
it's something else. That's ignorance. That's close to being a
synonym for duplicity. That is something very different than
being uninformed. You have an obligation to become informed.
Once informed, a person has an obligation to act upon the
information, not to become an ignorant individual as a result. . . .

At Nuremberg it was said that there was a complicity on the part of
the German citizenry. The Germans, as a whole, as a group, were
deemed guilty of what was done. . . . Their government had set itself
on a track that it felt it did not have to be bound by. It rejected
the rule of law. The citizenry, at that point, incurred not only a
right but an obligation to do whatever it was that was necessary to
ensure that their government did comply with the rule of law. That
was their obligation. That's the enforcement mechanism.

That's the "prevention" for international warfare: that the
citizenry of each country do whatever it has to, as Malcolm X would
have put it, by any means necessary, to ensure that their
governments do not violate the rule of law in a manner that leads
to the kinds of results that were observable in Europe during the
Second World War. Or have been observable at every step in the
course of U.S. history. . . .

[You] do what's necessary. The outlaw regime that is perpetrating
the crime will ultimately make the determination of what is
necessary by the nature of its resistance. How it resists will
define for you. You don't define for it.

You are not going to morally persuade a criminal state structure,
bent upon perpetrating genocide, war crimes, and crimes against
humanity, to do the right thing. You don't speak truth to power.
Power is not listening. Power knows better than you. You don't
speak truth to power. You speak truth, in the teeth of power. You
speak truth to people.

The Powell/Blair White Paper fell into that hallowed tradition
of a “White Paper” based upon insinuation, allegation,
rumors, propaganda, lies, half-truths, etc. Even unnamed British
government officials on an off-the-record basis admitted that
the case against bin Laden and Al Qaeda would not stand up in
court. As a matter of fact, the
Blair/Powell White Paper was
widely derided in the British news media. There was nothing there. . . .

So let us now turn to the law. Immediately after the 11
September 2001 attacks President Bush's first public statement
characterized these terrible attacks as an act of terrorism.
Under United States domestic law there is a definition of
terrorism, which clearly qualifies them as such. To be sure,
under international law and practice there is no generally
accepted definition of terrorism . . .

What happened? It appears that President Bush consulted with
Secretary Powell and all of a sudden they changed the rhetoric
and characterization of these terrible attacks. They now called
them an act of war -- though clearly this was not an act of war,
which international law and practice define as a military attack
by one nation state upon another nation state.

There are enormous differences and consequences, however, in how
you treat an act of terrorism compared to how you treat an act
of war. This nation and others have dealt with acts of terrorism
before. Normally acts of terrorism are dealt with as a matter of
international and domestic law enforcement -- which is, in my
opinion, precisely how these terrible attacks should have been
dealt with -- not as an act of war.

Indeed there is a treaty directly on point to which both the
United States and Afghanistan are party: the 1971
Convention for
the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil
Aviation, the so-called Montreal Sabotage Convention. Article
1(I)(b) thereof criminalizes the destruction of civilian
aircraft while in service. It has an entire legal regime
specifically designed to deal with this type of situation and
all issues related to it, including reference to the
International Court of
Justice to resolve any disputes that
could not be settled by negotiations between the United States
and Afghanistan or other contracting parties. The Bush Jr.
administration simply ignored the Montreal Sabotage Convention
completely, as well as the 12 or so multilateral conventions
already on the books that deal with various components and
aspects of what people generally call international terrorism,
many of which could have been used and relied upon to handle
this matter in a lawful, effective, and peaceful manner.

We have only outdone the Romans in turning
metaphors such as the war on terrorism, or poverty,
or Aids into actual wars on targets we appear, often,
to pick at random in order to maintain turbulence in
foreign lands. . . . The media, never much good at analysis, are more
and more breathless and incoherent. On CNN, even
the stolid Jim Clancy started to hyperventilate when
an Indian academic tried to explain how Iraq was
once our ally and `friend' in its war against our
Satanic enemy Iran. `None of that conspiracy stuff,'
snuffed Clancy. Apparently, `conspiracy stuff' is
now shorthand for unspeakable truth.

The intention to limit and control the investigation of the
historically unprecedented bombings on United States soil
is entirely consistent with the misrepresentations and
obfuscations fomented and directed by Bush II. Historian
Robert Conot wrote about the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials in his
book Justice at Nuremberg. His assessment of Hitler's
understanding and use of the "big lie" is timeless in its
relevance. How power can corrupt and how unaccountable power can
pervert a free and open society, is the paramount issue we must
address while there is time to exercise any of the constitutional
rights we claim are still ours.

"Hitler's dictum that `the magnitude of a lie always contains
a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the
people . . . more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a
little one' has once more come into vogue.

"The most effective means to combat such distortions is to make
the facts accessible, and, with them, expose the statements for
what they are. At Nuremberg, General Telford Taylor, the
prosecutor of more war criminals than any other man, said: `We
cannot here make history over again. But we can see that it is written
true.'" [123]

Today, making the facts about 9-11 accessible to all our human family
is how we can reclaim our world and renew our hope for ourselves and
each other. The misrepresentations, omissions, and deceptions
described [in Broadening Our Perspectives of 11
September 2001] that have defined the Bush II agenda since 9-11
occurred, are summarized in the following list.

The 9-11 bombings were a crime against humanity of mass murder
of civilians. Bush II intentionally chose to misrepresent these
crimes as an act of war, rejecting legal remedies, and pursuing
wars that they claim may never end, at least not in our lifetime.

The evidence, as presented to the world, claiming Osama bin
Laden was responsible for the 9-11 bombings would not stand up
in a court of law.

The real reason Bush II is sabotaging the International Criminal
Court is that senior officials fear prosecution for their criminal
conspiracy to conduct a war of aggression.

The 1/8/02 Bush II Nuclear Posture Review, ordering the Pentagon to
draw up war plans for the first-use of nuclear weapons, constitutes a
Nuremberg Crime against Peace by "planning, preparation, initiation or
waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international
treaties, agreements or assurances."

Since 1991, a World Trade Center's worth of Iraqi children have died
every month as a direct result of U.S. policies. Bush II only mentions
the loss of American lives on the single day of 9-11-01.

The United States has rejected a legally-binding system of United
Nations inspections of suspected U.S. biological weapons facilities
while at the same time accusing other countries -- including Iraq -- of
developing biological weapons. Simultaneously, the United States armed
forces, in direct violation of the
Biological
Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, is actively pushing for offensive
biological weapons development, despite the fact such activity is illegal
and subject to federal criminal and civil penalties.

The October 2001 "USA PATRIOT
Act" is turning the U.S. into a
permanent police state. It vastly expands the structures of
government secrecy and surveillance, utterly relinquishes any semblance
of due process, categorically violates the
First,
Fourth,
Fifth,
Sixth
and Eighth
Amendments, and unacceptably mixes aspects of criminal
investigations with aspects of immigration and foreign intelligence
laws, while it simultaneously extinguishes the accountability of
elected and non-elected government officials.

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, representing the
biggest government reorganization since the establishment of the
Department of Defense in the 1940s, will further erode if not overturn
the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which has kept the U.S. military out of
local law enforcement for more than a century.

Attorney General Ashcroft, the leading law enforcement officer of
the land, is mounting a series of assaults on the United States Bill
of Rights that deny a host of constitutional liberties to U.S. citizens,
as well as preparation on many fronts for the imposition of martial
law and the creation of internment camps for enemy citizens of Ashcroft's
choosing.

Bush II's war on terrorism is founded on political deceptions
and deceits directed at the civilian population of the United States.
These include omissions that supposed enemies like Al Qaeda are
categorized as U.S. intelligence assets and that the Islamic Brigades
are a creation of the Central Intelligence Agency.

A broad range of data and sources indicate the United States has
planned for war in Asia long before 9/11. The beneficiaries and
proponents of such military campaigns include U.S. oil corporations,
the interests of which are well-represented in Bush II.

Given all indications from the four commercial airliner's timeline
sequences on 9-11, there was a stand down of defensive U.S. Air Force
response. United States military and/or civilian incompetence or
complicity is the only rational explanation for this situation.

Bush Jr. and Cheney have expressly asked Senate Majority
Leader Daschle to limit any congressional investigation into
9-11 because, as Cheney said, "a review of what happened on
September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the
effort in the war on terrorism."

Article Pool
Contains local copy of articles referenced in Crimes Against Humanity
(indicated with a `+' link back to the file referencing the following).
See Also: Articles from
John Judge's 911 Analysis.

www.meetup.com has finally accepted the 9/11 truth
community into the fold and thus presents us with a
marvelous tool for spontaneous propagation and grassroots
organizing. A 9/11 Meetup Resources list is available at:
http://nancho.net/911CW/MUinfo1.html.
www.meetup.com is a free online
service helping people with special interests to meet up once a
month in towns and cities across the country. This allows previously
virtual communities to swiftly convert their ideas into on-the-ground
action groups and constituencies, and is an ideal tool for amplifying
9/11 awareness and activities.

How To Help (Easily and A Lot) :

Simplest:
Go to 9-11questions.meetup.com
and sign in as a member. This will not obligate you in any way, but will help
build topic profile and wider interest in the issue.

More Involved:
Help locate a meeting place in your area. The trick is to find roomy,
relatively quiet venues where participants can talk freely and see
key 9/11 videos to kick off discussion and brainstorming on meaningful
ways to act.

More Committed:
Sign up as a meetup host (which means you greet new participants, help
them feel comfortable, and facilitate making the evening run smoothly),
and/or help locate good handouts and videos to present.